Needs and Wants (Concluded)

My grandmother was a terrible cook. In her youth, she inexplicably lost her sense of smell and taste. Henceforth, everything she ever made on a stove or in an oven tasted like crap. Of course, she no longer cared, so the loss really wasn't hers. However, I remember an awful lot of burnt cookies, dried out pork chops, and Spaghetti-O's that had more flavor than the meat she cooked. I never could figure out why grandpa put ketchup on everything, until I tried her food without it.

My parents often took us camping when we were kids. One year, my grandparents joined us at Lake Norfork in northern Arkansas. As we sat down to a meal at the concrete picnic table, my grandpa said grace, and we began to eat. A few moments later, grandma stopped and a tear rolled down her cheek. After a moment of concern from the rest of us, she smiled and said, "I tasted that."

From then on, she enjoyed her food much more than had in fifty years, but her cooking never improved. But at the very least, she knew how bad she was and dinner out was a much more frequent occurrence. The interesting thing was the look she got in her eye on that day of camping. It was recognition, longing, relief, all rolled into one. Three wars, three sons, and seven grandchildren had come along in absence of her senses, but that long hiatus was not enough to erase her memory.

I believe this is true of many things and a little perspective can go a long way. In my grandmother's case, knowing what she was missing was as simple as knowing what was there. In the case of Henry's wife, finding out who she wasn't was a matter of finding out who she could be.

I know I came at this topic from the wrong direction, but I wanted to illustrate the point that we may think we know who we are and that we are the masters of all we survey. The truth is, all we really know is what we were yesterday. We are the sum of our experiences and we have no idea how high we can reach until someone, or something, shows us what can yet come to pass.

Henry has been smiling more lately, and that vacant look he used to have when his friends were not distracting him has faded to all the relevance of a shadow in a dark room. I'm not the type to pry, but I did ask him how things were going and he was all too happy to share how his life has changed. For ten minutes I listened to him and I was proud for him. Not only in the complete one-eighty that has occurred between he and his wife, but in his willingness to hold out just one more day. He took the worst he could ever imagine and then took a little more. In the end, we find that his diligence has paid off.

What it comes down to, friends, is that he decided to make a change. He decided that he wasn't going to be unhappy. Not with his wife, but with himself. His trials had turned him into a person he didn't respect. After a long look in the mirror, he made the choice to be different, better. Rather than trying to change the things about his wife that caused him grief, he changed the things that he allowed to cause him grief. When his wife saw that he was choosing to be happy in spite of their troubles, she made that same self examination, and made choices that were tough for her too.

As one could have only predicted had her love for him been certain, their relationship was more important to her than all of the insecurities and pride that drove her behavior just a few short months ago. What she stood to lose was of far more value than what she so ardently protected, and it wasn't until it was on the way out the door (literally) that she made a change.

The love of a person isn't something to which we're entitled, nor is it something we're granted. It is something we're extended in the way we receive hospitality from a host. It can be abused and, with a little effort, rescinded. We never own the love of another and sometimes we can forget that in a relationship. It's especially easy to do when we are so certain of another's love that we begin to view it as a convenience to be used when and how we desire. But that's a mistake of colossal magnitude.

Viewing our spouse, lover, girlfriend or boyfriend as anything other than an equal person with equally important needs and wants is to put them on a shelf. In the times when they are not convenient, they are viciously aware of it, make no mistake. They can feel the vacuum of love as acutely as a knife pressed slowly and steadily into their flesh.

That was the pain Henry bore with exceptional dignity. When he stepped out of the place in which he'd been put, he became free. He was free to love his wife for the things she was, rather than to lament the things she could not be as long as she kept him in that place. And in his freedom, she found beauty. And it was a beauty in which she decided she wanted to bask. Being free of the obligation to love each other, they have again found the desire to love each other.

For as long as we wish to love someone, we will always find ways to show them that love.

Forgive My Insensitivity

CNN has posted an article regarding the legislator of Connecticut's proposed bill to repeal the statute of limitations on sexual abuse of a minor. It would take the current statute of 30 years from the age of majority to report sexual abuse and make it indefinite. In other words, victims of childhood abuse will have the lesser of the the remainder of their own lives, or the remainder of their attacker's, to bring accusations to bear.

This is the point where I beg your indulgence. The following will be brief, but direct.

The article also states that local Catholic leadership are instructing their parishioners to oppose the bill because the "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic church in Connecticut, threatening... schools, ... parishes , and... Catholic charities."

Correction! The actions of their CLERGY undermine the church!

In a letter from the three Arch Bishops of Connecticut, Catholics are being told to contact their elected leaders to express their concern. In moments like this, I find that restating the idea in a different way often lends some clarity. If we take the above statement and instead say, "We, as an organization, do not want the law to allow crimes committed by our leaders to come back and bite us in the ass in perpetuity," it suddenly sounds very selfish.

Let's take this and expand the scope to include ALL victims of childhood abuse. Shall we then say to child abusers everywhere, "It's ok. Your crimes have a shelf life. That child you scarred can't come after you beyond their 48th birthday"?

Well, gee, when you say it like that, it sounds kinda silly.

1st Amendment Freedom vs 4th Amendment Privacy

There are presently court cases on the docket which are set to decide the public's right to information against the victims' right to privacy. In question, thanks to the diligence of men like Larry Flynt, is whether or not grizzly crime scene photos may be published in the interest of public safety and information. First Amendment activists are quick to point out that the freedom of information is protected, and for the sake of knowing how our tax dollars are spent, we should be able to view all material related to judicial matters and decide for ourselves if our interests are adequately represented.

The Fourth Amendment conversely protects us from unreasonable search and seizure, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that private matters are not public domain, and shall not be so unless there is probable cause to indicate a crime has been committed. Journalists, and other publishers like Mr. Flynt, are demanding that crime scene and autopsy photos be made available, regardless of the risks or damage that may befall the victims or surviving family.

I am torn over this issue because I don't believe there should be a cap on information, and if I make an exception for the exorbitance of the human cost, I must concede that other exceptions may exist. What I find laughable is that media outlets are only contesting the family's requests for injunctions against the release of such photo's in high profile cases, which necessitate the injunctions in the first place. If this is such a critical topic, then journalists should be requesting access to ALL crime scene and autopsy photos, and yet they do not. This reveals one of the fundamental truths about news media, which most people forget, and that is that at it's top level, news is a business. And fundamental to all business, they must remain competitive. To do so, they must be reporting on the hot-button issues of the day, which they claim is only possible if they have access to those pictures.

I personally believe it is shameful that media mongers have discovered the price of a murder victim's dignity, and it's value is a market share.

I therefore propose a simple fix to this conundrum. If the media is so intent on having access to photos and videos of death, let's give it to them. In a two step process, they will have all the access they desire. Consider the following:

1. Media companies wishing to examine and/or publish crime scene and autopsy photos must submit a proposal, outlining the intended purpose of the story and projected impact on public safety, to an independent review board that will determine the validity and viability of the proposal. The submission of the proposal will cost the company a nominal fee, from which the board will draw operating expenses, and the excess of which will be contributed to crime prevention programs nationwide.


2. Upon successful review of their proposal, the board will grant access to the requested material, which will come as part of a package bundled with case files from 99 other non-news worthy violent crimes. After reviewing the photos associated with those 99 other cases, the news agency will then have access to the photos pertinent to their segment on the 11 o'clock news, to use as prescribed by law.

If they want information, let give it to them. All of it. If they want to make a buck off of a murder, let's sell it to them at a premium.